Digital Advertising Displays, Inc. v. Newforth Partners, LLC et al
Filing
67
MINUTE ORDER Plaintiffs Second Motion to Amend/Modify Scheduling Order filed March 12, 2013; docket #63 is granted in part and denied in part. Initial expert designation: March 28, 2013; Rebuttal expert designation April 29, 2013; Discovery due by 5/15/2013; Dispositive Motions due by 5/31/2013; Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/1/2013 09:30 AM in Courtroom A 501 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty; The parties shall submit their proposed pretrial order, pursuant to District of Colorado Electronic Case Filing (ECF) Procedures V.L. no later than five (5) business days prior to the pretrial conference, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 3/14/2013.(ervsl, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00682-WJM-MEH
DIGITAL ADVERTISING DISPLAYS, INC., a Colorado corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERWOOD PARTNERS, LLC, a California limited liability company,
TIM COX, an individual,
NEWFORTH PARTNERS, LLC, a California limited liability company,
DHANDO INVESTMENTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
ROBERT HOFFER, an individual,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 13, 2013.
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Amend/Modify Scheduling Order [filed March 12, 2013; docket
#63] is granted in part and denied in part. Having reviewed the motion and the response filed
by the “Hoffer Defendants,” the Court concludes that, although there was no formal stay of
proceedings in this case and, thus, little justification for postponing discovery while awaiting an
order on the motions to dismiss, the District Court’s order and the amended complaint filed February
6, 2013 have actually re-characterized the claims in this case, as evidenced by the Defendants’
answer and “partial” motion to dismiss filed in response to the amended complaint. Thus, the Court
finds no prejudice to the parties (here, no trial has been set) and good cause1 to allow a 60-day
extension of the current deadlines in this case. The Scheduling Order shall be modified as follows:
Initial expert designation:
Rebuttal expert designation:
Discovery cutoff:
Dispositive motions deadline:
March 28, 2013
April 29, 2013
May 15, 2013
May 31, 2013
The Court will grant no further extension of these deadlines absent a showing of exceptional cause.
1
The Court notes that Plaintiff filed its original motion to amend (denied without prejudice
on procedural grounds) on February 1, 2013, four days after the current deadline for initial expert
designation. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), the Plaintiff must demonstrate excusable neglect
for failing to seek an extension before the deadline; here, the Court concludes that the “recharacterization” of the claims serves to excuse the Plaintiff for the brief delay in seeking the
extensions.
In addition, the Final Pretrial Conference scheduled in this case for May 24, 2013 is hereby
vacated and rescheduled to August 1, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom A501 on the fifth floor of
the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.
The parties shall submit their proposed pretrial order, pursuant to District of Colorado
Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Procedures V.L. no later than five (5) business days prior to the
pretrial conference. The proposed pretrial order to be submitted to the Magistrate Judge under the
ECF Procedures must be submitted in a useable format (i.e., WordPerfect or Word only) and shall
be emailed to the Magistrate Judge at Hegarty_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov.
Attorneys and/or pro se parties not participating in ECF shall submit their proposed pretrial
order on paper to the Clerk’s Office. However, if any party in this case is participating in ECF, it
is the responsibility of that party to submit the proposed pretrial order pursuant to the District of
Colorado ECF Procedures.
The parties shall prepare the proposed pretrial order in accordance with the form
which may be downloaded in richtext format from the forms section of the court’s website at
http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx. Instructions for downloading in richtext format are
posted in the forms section of the website.
All out-of-state counsel shall comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 83.3C prior to the pretrial
conference.
The parties are further advised that they shall not assume that the court will grant the relief
requested in any motion. Failure to appear at a court-ordered conference or to comply with a courtordered deadline which has not be vacated by court order may result in the imposition of sanctions.
Please remember that anyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States
Courthouse will be required to show a valid photo identification. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 83.2B.
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
